Lord Goldsmith has admitted that he believed invading Iraq would break
international law but came to a "different view" when he was asked to give a
"definitive" opinion on the eve of war.

The former Attorney General told the Iraq Inquiry that his original assessment was that Britain and the US needed a second United Nations security council resolution to give them a legal mandate for military action.

He said: "At one stage my personal view was that taking all these factors into the balance, there wasn't enough there.

"The balance came down in favour of saying, 'no, a second resolution is needed'...

"I then ultimately reached, when I had to reach a definitive view on this, a different view."

Lord Goldsmith also revealed that he did not meet Mr Blair between July 2002 - when he warned there would be no basis for military action without a new resolution - and October of that year.

"I was not included in meetings at all. I didn't know what meetings were taking place between the Prime Minister and others. I was not asked to provide any advice in writing at this stage."

His evidence will form a crucial part of the Inquiry's questioning of Tony Blair on Friday, when the former prime minister will be asked to explain whether he pressured Lord Goldsmith into changing his mind.

On what is proving to be a dramatic day of evidence, Lord Goldsmith also revealed that he told Downing Street that Tony Blair did not have the authority to launch an invasion of Iraq without the backing of a second United Nations resolution.

His letter was not "terribly welcome" to Mr Blair, he said.

Lord Goldsmith attended a meeting at Downing Street on July 24 2002 at which he said self-defence and humanitarian intervention would provide "no basis" for the use of force against Iraq. He spoke briefly at the meeting but followed it up with a letter.

He told the inquiry: "I did it of my own volition because I knew that the prime minister was going to see president Bush in the United States.

"I knew that one of the topics of conversation at least was going to be the Iraq issue because that was obviously very much on the international agenda at that stage.

"And I didn't want there to be any doubt that in my view the prime minister could not have the view that he could agree with president Bush somehow, 'let's go without going back to the United Nations'.

"I wasn't asked for it. I don't frankly think it was terribly welcome.

"I do believe that it may have well been one of the contributing factors to the prime minister, to his great credit, persuading president Bush that he must go down the United Nations route."

Asked why his letter was not welcome, Lord Goldsmith said: "You will have to ask Mr Blair that."

Yesterday it emerged that Foreign Office lawyers were "unanimous" in their opinion that going to war without a UN mandate would be a "crime of aggression".

Lord Goldsmith also expressed "frustration" at the Government's refusal to declassify key documents relating to the run-up to war.

He said: "I want to make it clear that I didn't agree with the decision that has apparently been made that certain documents are not to be declassified but I will give the evidence that the inquiry seeks."

Lord Goldsmith said his advice was not consulted in the run up to UN Security Council resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, which required Iraq to give up its supposed weapons of mass destruction.

He said he did not meet Mr Blair between July 2002 - when he warned there would be no basis for military action without a new resolution - and October of that year.

"I was not included in meetings at all. I didn't know what meetings were taking place between the Prime Minister and others. I was not asked to provide any advice in writing at this stage," he said.

He said he met Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, on November 7 - on the eve of the resolution being passed - to warn him he should not assume it would be "all right on the night" and that it would provide sufficient authorisation.

He said he wanted to make clear "they should not take it for granted when it came that when definitive legal advice was given that we would be in a position to take military action".